Infrastructure Australia - Annual report and ramifications

[dwb]

Queensland has made a mistake in not completing the CRR business case by now.

I'd prefer they got it right generally and then further so perhaps some of the things that come up in preparing the business case, for instance the inclusion or not, staging or not of north west transit corridor or other design amendments are done right. What if their NGR contract comes back and let's them change the gradient on the tunnel, unlikely but could let them save significant money.

[dwb]

Yes I agree with getting more freight on trains, but come on, MOST congestion is cars, not trucks, and all single occupant cars too. Let's not contribute to the furrfy that congestion is from all the trucks.

[Fares_Fair]

Yes I agree with getting more freight on trains, but come on, MOST congestion is cars, not trucks, and all single occupant cars too. Let's not contribute to the furrfy that congestion is from all the trucks.

Do we know what proportion of traffic consists of trucks that could be moved to freight rail ?
I do not know if that is a furphy or not, your comment would suggest it is.
What are the facts is my question ? (not to you necesarily dwb, but just anyone who may know)

It would have a real impact on road maintenance as well, there are other cost benefits.
Would it save extra lane construction in the short term ?

Regards,
Fares_fair.

[dwb]

Yes I agree with getting more freight on trains, but come on, MOST congestion is cars, not trucks, and all single occupant cars too. Let's not contribute to the furrfy that congestion is from all the trucks.

Do we know what proportion of traffic consists of trucks that could be moved to freight rail ?
I do not know if that is a furphy or not, your comment would suggest it is.
What are the facts is my question ? (not to you necesarily dwb, but just anyone who may know)

It would have a real impact on road maintenance as well, there are other cost benefits.
Would it save extra lane construction in the short term ?

Regards,
Fares_fair.

Sorry I don't have any stats to give you, I'm going from what I remember traffic engineers telling me of the road counts on inner Brisbane roads.

If we want to talk about getting trucks off the road (which is a noble aim), let's not sell it under de-congestion, let's sell it under reduced road fatalities, higher productivity etc etc, whatever those benefits may be.

[somebody]

If we want to talk about getting trucks off the road (which is a noble aim), let's not sell it under de-congestion, let's sell it under reduced road fatalities, higher productivity etc etc, whatever those benefits may be.

+1.

[tomato]

I haven't read in detail the latest IA info .... ...however cruising around found this Vic Govt Media Release ..(courtesy VicSig forum....the VicSig linkie...http://www.vicsig.net/news/3254) refutting much of  "The Age"
Time for inert Baillieu government to get its act together over major projects.....July 7, 2011 ....article courtesy dwb posted July 7, 2011 ...10:42 AM

[ozbob]

Thanks for that link Tomato, interesting that it lists rail projects only ..

Victoria also advised Infrastructure Australia that early work was already underway toward developing a pipeline of projects and details would be provided to Infrastructure Australia as planning work on the following projects was completed:

a rail link to Avalon Airport;
a feasibility study for a rail link to Melbourne Airport;
a feasibility study for a rail link to Doncaster; and
a feasibility study for a rail link to Rowville.

If and when funds do become available there is going to be a real bun fight of sorts.  No wonder Sir Eddington spat the dummy, nothing is ready anywhere ..

[tomato]

Indeed interesting Ozbob...its isn't a big Media Release so I have posted up the complete article.

I was wondering whether it came from a 'pro rail' Victorian government department...no ...indeed direct from
the Office of (The) Premier - Ted Ballieu

"Rebuttal of false claims in The Age article on Infrastructure Australia report
Tuesday, 05 July 2011

An article in The Age today – Passive Victoria set to miss out on infrastructure billions by Josh Gordon and Clay Lucas – contains a series of claims that are false and inaccurate.

The Victorian Coalition Government is not at risk of losing billions of dollars of federal infrastructure funding.

The Coalition Government held discussions in April with Infrastructure Australia and its chairman Sir Rod Eddington. Victoria was advised by Infrastructure Australia that the Commonwealth Government did not have funds available for further infrastructure projects and would be unable to fund infrastructure projects that were being submitted to Infrastructure Australia.

As recently as 10 June this year, the Commonwealth publicly confirmed that there would be no second round of funding in the foreseeable future for Infrastructure Australia's Building Australia Fund.

tomato question - Anyone confirm what is written in the above two paragraphs?

The Age also falsely misrepresents claims that Victoria has not provided project proposals to Infrastructure Australia whilst other states have. The Infrastructure Australia report notes that the new NSW government has not provided any new proposals reporting "as at 6 June 2011, the NSW government was still reviewing Infrastructure Australia's request."

In February 2011, Victoria wrote to Infrastructure Australia and advised them that "Victoria's future Infrastructure priorities will be confirmed over the next 12 - 18 months through the State's 2011-12 budget process, in parallel with the development of policy frameworks such as the new metropolitan planning strategy and the Transport Solutions Plan, which will address logistical bottlenecks in the transport network. The Victorian Government will engage with Infrastructure Australia in relation to these priorities on an ongoing basis as they take shape, consistent with Infrastructure Australia's recent move away from a single annual submission process."

Victoria also advised Infrastructure Australia that early work was already underway toward developing a pipeline of projects and details would be provided to Infrastructure Australia as planning work on the following projects was completed:

•a rail link to Avalon Airport;
•a feasibility study for a rail link to Melbourne Airport;
•a feasibility study for a rail link to Doncaster; and
•a feasibility study for a rail link to Rowville. "

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/1341-rebuttal-of-false-claims-in-the-agearticle-on-infrastructure-australia-report.html

Returning to the relevance of IA to Qld - how far is CRR in chewing through the (if I remember correctly) $20 million of "feasability funding" from the Feds ?

[Stillwater]

Can't Queensland see that it can race to the front of the queue, when funds become available, by bringing its business case for CRR to 'shovel ready' status?

[Golliwog]

Can't Queensland see that it can race to the front of the queue, when funds become available, by bringing its business case for CRR to 'shovel ready' status?

I think it has, and as far as I'm aware, it is still working hard on it. I think its certainly in our favor that IA seems to like the CRR plan. Only downside to that is it's not actually IA that hands out the money, it just makes recommendations.

[dwb]

Can't Queensland see that it can race to the front of the queue, when funds become available, by bringing its business case for CRR to 'shovel ready' status?

I think it has, and as far as I'm aware, it is still working hard on it. I think its certainly in our favor that IA seems to like the CRR plan. Only downside to that is it's not actually IA that hands out the money, it just makes recommendations.

Do people just think reference designs and EIS's just pop out of nowhere? Didn't they only get the money just last year?

[Golliwog]

Do people just think reference designs and EIS's just pop out of nowhere? Didn't they only get the money just last year?

Aren't they on a shrub down in the garden next to the money tree the PM keeps telling us doesn't exist?

[ozbob]

Rail Express --> Weighing into Australia's national infrastructure debate

[SteelPan]

Rail Express --> Weighing into Australia's national infrastructure debate

What I took away from IA 2011 "list" is that the looonnngg awaited "Inland Railway" (you know the "private sector to build" one) - which I've always actually seen as an intelligent and "real" strategic advance for Australia, is dead for the next 10yrs - at least! (except MAYBE, the Surat Basin component, next year we'll MAYBE know).    :conf

[ozbob]

From Rail Express click here!

Infrastructure Australia and rail in 2011

Infrastructure Australia and rail in 2011
by Rail Express — last modified Jul 27, 2011 05:32 PM
— filed under: Weekly Top Stories

Infrastructure Australia's (IA's) annual report to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has emphasised the urgent need to reform the financing of major infrastructure projects across Australia.

The 2011 Infrastructure Priority List includes $86bn of projects that IA says make a valuable contribution to addressing infrastructure issues of national significance.

Releasing the report titles Communicating the Imperative for Action, the chairman of IA, Sir Rod Eddington, said government reforms to infrastructure planning and delivery was frustratingly slow and this had resulted in a lagging of Australian productivity.

"Infrastructure that is properly planned and financed will improve productivity, economic development and help to preserve a sustainable future for all Australians."

Reflecting Eddington's concerns, only half a dozen infrastructure projects in this year's priority listing fall into IA's 'Ready to proceed' category although at least two of these are rail projects.

Victoria's $5bn Melbourne Metro Stage 1 project, which has been on the drawing board for some time now, gets a guernsey as does a more modest $418m proposal for grade separation of the interstate and suburban rail lines in Adelaide.

Melbourne Metro Stage 1 would involve an 8km rail tunnel under inner Melbourne allowing better segregation of suburban rail services, increasing network capacity.  The construction of five new stations is also included.

IA also considers the proposed Melbourne Metro Stage 2, which would provide further capacity to improve reliability on the Dandenong, Frankston and Sandringham lines, to be of 'real potential', although a cost estimate is not yet available.

The grade separation in Adelaide would involve construction of flyovers, or a tunnel, at Goodwood and North Adelaide that would remove two major bottlenecks where the ARTC mainline crosses the suburban network, frequently resulting in delays for both commuter and interstate freight services.

The Queensland's Government's Cross River Rail project for Brisbane is placed by IA in the 'Threshold' category which means it is not ready to proceed due to a small number of outstanding issues.

If it were to go ahead, the project would see construction of two 7.8kms-long, single-bore tunnels between Yeerongpilly and Victoria Park.

There would also be construction of other new surface tracks and some additional stations, all aimed at providing greater capacity.

This is aimed to cater for predicted growth in demand for services on Brisbane's suburban passenger network.

The current estimated cost of the project is $7.7bn and the outcome of a jointly-funded $25m feasibility study by the Australian and Queensland Governments due at the end of 2011 is awaited.

A number of other suburban rail projects have made into IA's priority assessment for projects. They are in the 'early stages' of development, but have been identified as the right solution to an infrastructure challenge.

These include duplication and electrification of the Melton suburban rail link in Victoria at a cost of $1.3bn; capacity improvements and extension of Gold Coast heavy rail line to Coolangatta Airport ($2.8bn); and improvements and expansion of the Sydney Cityrail network including Stage 2 of the Richmond line duplication ($795m).

There a number of port and intermodal projects that are being considered as part of IA's themes of Competitive International Gateways and National Freight Network in which rail is a component of the overall solution.

These include: proposals for the improved access and/or expansion of the ports of Hastings, Darwin, Bunbury and Adelaide; intermodal terminals in western Melbourne and at Moorebank south of Sydney; and , a proposed $260m Melbourne International Freight Terminal at Swanson Dock.

The $500m full version of ARTC's Advanced Train Management System, working trials of which were recently completed successfully in South Australia, is considered by IA as having real potential to address a nationally significant infrastructure issue.

Commenting on the slow pace of infrastructure reform, Eddington says: "Currently the debate around infrastructure is about individual projects rather than policy development and systemic issues such as tax rates and charging, and levels of service.

"All governments need to communicate the imperative for action to their constituents and get on with the job. "In the future, IA will produce an expanded infrastructure pipeline emphasising projects that could be privately funded and projects in regional Australia."

A full copy of Infrastructure Australia's report Communicating the Imperative for Action can be found at: http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/2011_coag/files/2011_Report_to_COAG.pdf

In next week's Newswire, Mark Carter will look at the rail projects in more detail and at some of the issues surrounding them.

[dwb]

"All governments need to communicate the imperative for action to their constituents and get on with the job. "In the future, IA will produce an expanded infrastructure pipeline emphasising projects that could be privately funded and projects in regional Australia."

Too true. Both levels of government here AND both parties have refused to even talk to the electorate about pricing. The feds clearly are saying they need to change their tune.

[Fares_Fair]

"All governments need to communicate the imperative for action to their constituents and get on with the job. "In the future, IA will produce an expanded infrastructure pipeline emphasising projects that could be privately funded and projects in regional Australia."

Too true. Both levels of government here AND both parties have refused to even talk to the electorate about pricing. The feds clearly are saying they need to change their tune.

Do you mean political parties ?
That just cannot be right as the state opposition do not have access to the costings for major infrastructure projects.
The Question on Notice No. 405 by Andrew Powell MP, put forward on my behalf on 24 March (IIRC) is a case in point.

He requested 2 things.
a) the cost of the duplication of the rail line from Beerburrum to Landsborough in 2011 dollars.
b) the cost for the duplication of the rail line from Landsborough to Nambour in 2011 dollars.

The answer (if you could call it that) referred him to a 2009 report with concept prices based upon concept plans
and without the equivalent separation of works as asked for.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Golliwog]

By pricing I don't think dwb meant costing, but how you actually pay for the project. So tolls, public funding, private partnership, etc. which is something both sides can talk to the electorate about. It isn't feasible or possible to have everything we need funded out of the state or federal government purse so they need to canvas the alternatives.

[dwb]

By pricing I don't think dwb meant costing, but how you actually pay for the project. So tolls, public funding, private partnership, etc. which is something both sides can talk to the electorate about. It isn't feasible or possible to have everything we need funded out of the state or federal government purse so they need to canvas the alternatives.

Correct! That is exactly what IA means when they use "pricing" as well. How to price the use of the infrastructure (not to figure out how much it will cost to build), normally with the main aim that users/benefitors pay, rather than simply govt borrowing the full build cost.

[Fares_Fair]

Thanks Golli and dwb.

Regards,
Fares-Fair.

[mufreight]

"All governments need to communicate the imperative for action to their constituents and get on with the job. "In the future, IA will produce an expanded infrastructure pipeline emphasising projects that could be privately funded and projects in regional Australia."

Too true. Both levels of government here AND both parties have refused to even talk to the electorate about pricing. The feds clearly are saying they need to change their tune.

Do you mean political parties ?
That just cannot be right as the state opposition do not have access to the costings for major infrastructure projects.
The Question on Notice No. 405 by Andrew Powell MP, put forward on my behalf on 24 March (IIRC) is a case in point.

He requested 2 things.
a) the cost of the duplication of the rail line from Beerburrum to Landsborough in 2011 dollars.
b) the cost for the duplication of the rail line from Landsborough to Nambour in 2011 dollars.

The answer (if you could call it that) referred him to a 2009 report with concept prices based upon concept plans
and without the equivalent separation of works as asked for.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

But one must be mindful of the fact that the current Government passed a law allowing its Ministers and Members to lie to the Parliament to enable them to present misleading answers to questions in the house rather than to truthfully respond and provide accurate answers to questions that would place the Government in a bad light.

[Stillwater]

FF, the LNP is capable of costing infrastructure without having to seek answers from Labor in Queensland.  It can get pretty good estimates from the Liberal Victorian Government's transport advisors, for instance.  Let's not give the LNP any reason to say 'we can't prepare an accurate transport infrastructure policy because Anna Bligh won't give us the costings.'  That's like telling the teacher:  "The reason why I couldn't complete my homework is because my best friend wouldn't let me copy his/her work.'

[SurfRail]

FF, the LNP is capable of costing infrastructure without having to seek answers from Labor in Queensland.  It can get pretty good estimates from the Liberal Victorian Government's transport advisors, for instance.

They are the last people I would be asking for reliable estimates from.

[dwb]

But one must be mindful of the fact that the current Government passed a law allowing its Ministers and Members to lie to the Parliament to enable them to present misleading answers to questions in the house rather than to truthfully respond and provide accurate answers to questions that would place the Government in a bad light.

What are you on about?